Search (145 results, page 1 of 8)

0.08677482 = product of:
  0.13016222 = sum of:
    0.11726358 = weight(_text_:sociology in 1896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11726358 = score(doc=1896,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.38452733 = fieldWeight in 1896, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1896)
    0.012898651 = product of:
      0.025797302 = sum of:
        0.025797302 = weight(_text_:of in 1896) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025797302 = score(doc=1896,freq=38.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.37654874 = fieldWeight in 1896, product of:
              6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
                38.0 = termFreq=38.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1896)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to understand the information phenomenon through the means of informational practice - the way of acting that gives identity to a group - in a social field and knowledge domain. Design/methodology/approach - By relating Pierre Bourdieu's sociology of culture to the domain analysis approach of Birger Hjørland, the intention was to achieve a comprehensive interpretation of the structure which generates the discourse communities and, also, of the social structure from which they are derived. All of these form the conditions for understanding the efforts, objectives and interests of the actors in the social field that causes them to develop determined informational practices. The field of architecture was elected for analysis. Findings - The conclusions show that both the products and subjects of a domain of knowledge, inserted in social fields, are expressions of their informational practice. Research limitations/implications - The authors believe the theoretical model based on Bourdieu and Hjørland's concepts, here built to analyze the architecture domain, may be used to analyze other domains. Originality/value - Domain analysis is employed as an approach to the study of the information aspects but here supported by the sociological concepts of Bourdieu. Thus, it is possible to understand what, how and why the informational practices are constituted inside a domain of knowledge, and, fundamentally, interpret the historical, cultural, and social dimensions that influence the construction of information.

Source

Journal of documentation. 64(2008) no.3, S.397-412

0.052940946 = product of:
  0.07941142 = sum of:
    0.07035815 = weight(_text_:sociology in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07035815 = score(doc=1265,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.30495512 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043811057 = queryNorm
        0.2307164 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9606886 = idf(docFreq=113, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
    0.0090532685 = product of:
      0.018106537 = sum of:
        0.018106537 = weight(_text_:of in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018106537 = score(doc=1265,freq=52.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.26429096 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
              7.2111025 = tf(freq=52.0), with freq of:
                52.0 = termFreq=52.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Content

"In a new article published in Journal of Documentation, 2002, I claim that the special competency of information specialists and information scientists are related to "domain analysis." Information science grew out of special librarianship and documentation (cf. Williams, 1997), and implicit in its tradition has in my opinion been a focus an subject knowledge. Although domain analysis has earlier been introduced in JASIST (Hjoerland & Albrechtsen, 1995), the new article introduces 11 Specific approaches to domain analysis, which I Claim together define the Specific competencies of information specialists. The approaches are (I) Producing and evaluating literature guides and subject gateways, (2) Producing and evaluating special classifications and thesauri, (3) Research an and competencies in indexing and retrieving information specialties, (4) Knowledge about empirical user studies in subject areas, (5) Producing and interpreting bibliometrical studies, (6) Historical studies of information structures and Services in domains, (7) Studies of documents and genres in knowledge domains, (8) Epistemological and critical studies of different paradigms, assumptions, and interests in domains, (9) Knowledge about terminological studies, LSP (Languages for Special Purposes), and discourse analysis in knowledge fields, (10) Knowledge about and studies of structures and institutions in scientific and professional communication in a domain, (11) Knowledge about methods and results from domain analytic studies about professional cognition, knowledge representation in computer science and artificial intelligence. By bringing these approaches together, the paper advocates a view which may have been implicit in previous literature but which has not before been Set out systematically. The approaches presented here are neither exhaustive nor mutually exhaustve, but an attempt is made to present the state of the art. Specific examples and selective reviews of literature are provided, and the strength and drawback of each of these approaches are being discussed. It is my Claim that the information specialist who has worked with these 1 1 approaches in a given domain (e.g., music, sociology, or chemistry) has a special expertise that should not be mixed up with the kind of expertise taught at universities in corresponding subjects. Some of these 11 approaches are today well-known in schools of LIS. Bibliometrics is an example, Other approaches are new and represent a view of what should be introduced in the training of information professionals. First and foremost does the article advocates the view that these 1 1 approaches should be seen as supplementary. That the Professional identity is best maintained if Chose methods are applied to the same examples (same domain). Somebody would perhaps feel that this would make the education of information professionals too narrow. The Counter argument is that you can only understand and use these methods properly in a new domain, if you already have a deep knowledge of the Specific information problems in at least orte domain. It is a dangerous illusion to believe that one becomes more competent to work in any field if orte does not know anything about any domain. The special challenge in our science is to provide general background for use in Specific fields. This is what domain analysis is developed for. Study programs that allow the students to specialize and to work independent in the selected field (such as, for example, the Curriculum at the Royal School of LIS in Denmark) should fit well with the intentions in domain analysis. In this connection it should be emphasized that the 11 approaches are presented as general approaches that may be used in about any domain whatsoever. They should, however, be seen in connection. If this is not the case, then their relative strengths and weaknesses cannot be evaluated. The approaches do not have the same status. Some (e.g., empirical user studies) are dependent an others (e.g., epistemological studies).
It is my hope that domain analysis may contribute to the strengthening of the professional and scientific identity of our discipline and provide more coherence and depth in information studies. The paper is an argument about what should be core teachings in our field, It should be both broad enough to cover the important parts of IS and Specific enough to maintain a special focus and identity compared to, for example, computer science and the cognitive sciences. It is not a narrow view of information science and an the other hand it does not Set forth an unrealistic utopia."

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.14, S.1275-76

0.037970424 = product of:
  0.11391127 = sum of:
    0.11391127 = sum of:
      0.018938582 = weight(_text_:of in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018938582 = score(doc=4368,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 4368, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4368)
      0.09497269 = weight(_text_:22 in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09497269 = score(doc=4368,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4368, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4368)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:22:28

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 40(2006), S.xxx-xxx

0.033729117 = product of:
  0.10118735 = sum of:
    0.10118735 = sum of:
      0.018938582 = weight(_text_:of in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018938582 = score(doc=136,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
      0.08224877 = weight(_text_:22 in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08224877 = score(doc=136,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.536106 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper suggests a framework and systematic definitions for 6 words commonly used in dthe field of information science: data, information, knowledge, wisdom, inspiration, and intelligence. We intend these definitions to lead to a quantification of information science, a quantification that will enable their measurement, manipulastion, and prediction.

Date

22. 2.2007 18:56:23
22. 2.2007 19:22:13

Source

Emerging frameworks and methods: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on the Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS4), Seattle, WA, July 21 - 25, 2002. Eds.: Fidel, R., H. Bruce, P. Ingwersen u. P. Vakkari

0.02915454 = product of:
  0.08746362 = sum of:
    0.08746362 = sum of:
      0.028702263 = weight(_text_:of in 2746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028702263 = score(doc=2746,freq=24.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.41895083 = fieldWeight in 2746, product of:
            4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
              24.0 = termFreq=24.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2746)
      0.05876136 = weight(_text_:22 in 2746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05876136 = score(doc=2746,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 2746, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2746)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Fundamental forms of information, as well as the term information itself, are defined and developed for the purposes of information science/studies. Concepts of natural and represented information (taking an unconventional sense of representation), encoded and embodied information, as well as experienced, enacted, expressed, embedded, recorded, and trace information are elaborated. The utility of these terms for the discipline is illustrated with examples from the study of information-seeking behavior and of information genres. Distinctions between the information and curatorial sciences with respect to their social (and informational) objects of study are briefly outlined.

Content

Vgl. Erwiderung: Hjoerland, B.: The controversy over the concept of information: a rejoinder to Professor Bates. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.3, S.643.

Date

22. 3.2009 18:15:22

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.8, S.1033-1045

0.02536581 = product of:
  0.07609743 = sum of:
    0.07609743 = sum of:
      0.016739499 = weight(_text_:of in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.016739499 = score(doc=2277,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 2277, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2277)
      0.059357934 = weight(_text_:22 in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.059357934 = score(doc=2277,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2277, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2277)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

31. 7.2001 20:22:57

Footnote

Thematisierung der Verschiebung des Verständnisses von Wissensmanagement; vgl. auch: Day, R.E.: Totality and representation: a history of knowledge management ... in: JASIS 52(2001) no.9, S.725-735

Source

Journal of education for library and information science. 41(2000) no.?, S.294-306

0.021661952 = product of:
  0.06498586 = sum of:
    0.06498586 = sum of:
      0.0234353 = weight(_text_:of in 2790) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0234353 = score(doc=2790,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 2790, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2790)
      0.041550554 = weight(_text_:22 in 2790) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041550554 = score(doc=2790,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2790, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2790)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Survivors of intimate partner violence face more than information gaps; many face powerful barriers in the form of information myths. Triangulating data from in-depth interviews and community bulletin board postings, this study incorporates insights from survivors, police, and shelter staff to begin mapping the information landscape through which survivors move. An unanticipated feature of that landscape is a set of 28 compelling information myths that prevent some survivors from making effective use of the social, legal, economic, and support resources available to them. This analysis of the sources, contexts, and consequences of these information myths is the first step in devising strategies to counter their ill effects.

Date

22. 3.2009 19:16:44

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.826-836

0.019393288 = product of:
  0.05817986 = sum of:
    0.05817986 = sum of:
      0.02460194 = weight(_text_:of in 3012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02460194 = score(doc=3012,freq=54.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 3012, product of:
            7.3484693 = tf(freq=54.0), with freq of:
              54.0 = termFreq=54.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3012)
      0.03357792 = weight(_text_:22 in 3012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03357792 = score(doc=3012,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.21886435 = fieldWeight in 3012, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3012)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

When we were all facing the turn of the century and the somewhat larger turn of the millennium, we left behind epochs of colonialism, imperialism, capitalism, nazism and racialism. Not that the ideologies mentioned does no longer exist, but their impact as grand narratives has gone and they now exist as fragmented discursive parts of their former, illusive hegemony. Parts that have been thrown into the pits of post modern complexity. The 21st century holds no answers, no new meaning, at most it provides human communication a certain self reflectivity due to the increasing egocentrism and individuality of people (i.e. still mostly western people). Another symptom of the loss of grand narratives is a feeling of loss of meaning in everyday life, as well as the state of democracies around the world. Democracy shivers in its void between anarchy and repressive dictatorship. The description 'information age' provides the times we are in with a useful sticker. It tents both back in time e.g. the late 20, century digitalisation and forward in time by givingr origin to the contemporary discourse of social semantics i.e. Dream society, Knowledge society, Post modern society, Risk society, Hypercomplex society etc. The phrase 'information age' implied the introduction of a paradigm shift, and now it is still here showing that paradigms do not shift, they slide. This paper outlines a manifest for librarians and librarianship of the information age. The information age puts the spotlight on the librarian, both regarding classical tasks such as classification and cataloguing as well as new tasks such as systems analysis and design or database searching.
Complexity establishes a paradox between the tasks of preserving old knowledge (memory function) and facilitate cognitive dissonance in order to challenge established knowledge claims and create new knowledge (catalyser function). Through complexity all social systems organisations, discourse communities, ideologies) face an environment (or surrounding) that is characterised through its instability and contingency. What is real, or presumable real from one point of view can appear completely different from another point of view. Different discourses of meaning and significance float, blend and separates themselves form each other the arena of communication. The library has to both keep record of what has happened, as well as take part in the ongoing battles for new discursive hegemonies. The unity of the paradox of memory and catalysing is described as managing complexity and requires a conscious and constant oscillation between order and chaos, stability and change. The role of the librarian is defined through an analysis of contemporary social semantics as well as the technical, ethical, cultural and epistemological challenges facing us as librarians and information specialists.

Date

22. 7.2009 11:23:22

Source

Librarianship in the information age: Proceedings of the 13th BOBCATSSS Symposium, 31 January - 2 February 2005 in Budapest, Hungary. Eds.: Marte Langeland u.a

0.017274415 = product of:
  0.051823243 = sum of:
    0.051823243 = sum of:
      0.022144277 = weight(_text_:of in 5268) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.022144277 = score(doc=5268,freq=28.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 5268, product of:
            5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
              28.0 = termFreq=28.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5268)
      0.029678967 = weight(_text_:22 in 5268) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029678967 = score(doc=5268,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5268, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5268)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This is an empirical, experimental investigation of the value of information, as perceived through the willingness to purchase information (WTP) and the willingness to sell it (accept payment, WTA). We examined the effects of source nature: expertise versus content, and source status: copy versus exclusive original of information on the WTA-WTP ratio. In an animated computer simulation of a business game, players could maximize their profits by making choices regarding inventory and prices. Participants were offered the chance to bid for buying or selling information regarding the weather that may affect demand. We find, as hypothesized, that the subjective value of information does indeed follow the predictions of endowment effect theory. The ratio of willingness to accept to willingness to purchase (WTA-WTP) recorded for the 294 subjects resembles the ratio common for private goods, rather than the intuitively expected unity. The WTA-WTP ratios diverged from unity more often and in a more pronounced manner for information traded in the original form rather than as a copy of the original, although even for copies the WTA-WTP ratio is still double. The results yield a value of about three for the WTA-WTP ratio for original information whether the source is content or expertise. Copy information received a subjective value that was significantly different (lower) than original information. The implications for both online trading and online sharing of information are discussed.

Date

22. 7.2006 15:09:35

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57(2006) no.3, S.321-329

0.017165082 = product of:
  0.051495243 = sum of:
    0.051495243 = sum of:
      0.015880484 = weight(_text_:of in 479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.015880484 = score(doc=479,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.23179851 = fieldWeight in 479, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=479)
      0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03561476 = score(doc=479,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 479, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=479)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Anthropological inquiry suggests that all societies classify animals and plants in similar ways. Paradoxically, in the same cultures that have seen large advances in biological science, citizenry's practical knowledge of nature has dramatically diminished. Here we describe historical, cross-cultural and developmental research on how people ordinarily conceptualize organic nature (folkbiology), concentrating on cognitive consequences associated with knowledge devolution. We show that results on psychological studies of categorization and reasoning from "standard populations" fail to generalize to humanity at large. Usual populations (Euro-American college students) have impoverished experience with nature, which yields misleading results about knowledge acquisition and the ontogenetic relationship between folkbiology and folkpsychology. We also show that groups living in the same habitat can manifest strikingly distinct behaviors, cognitions and social relations relative to it. This has novel implications for environmental decision making and management, including commons problems.

Date

23. 1.2022 10:22:18

Source

Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. 10(2004) no.2, S.xx-xx

0.01678896 = product of:
  0.05036688 = sum of:
    0.05036688 = product of:
      0.10073376 = sum of:
        0.10073376 = weight(_text_:22 in 3952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10073376 = score(doc=3952,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.6565931 = fieldWeight in 3952, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3952)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

17. 7.1996 9:33:22
22. 7.2000 19:05:41

0.01641334 = product of:
  0.04924002 = sum of:
    0.04924002 = sum of:
      0.025496846 = weight(_text_:of in 3077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025496846 = score(doc=3077,freq=58.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.37216315 = fieldWeight in 3077, product of:
            7.615773 = tf(freq=58.0), with freq of:
              58.0 = termFreq=58.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3077)
      0.023743173 = weight(_text_:22 in 3077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023743173 = score(doc=3077,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3077, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3077)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The new term Representation of knowledge, applied to the framework of electronic segments of information, with comprehension of new material support for information, and a review and total conceptualisation of the terminology which is being applied, entails a review of all traditional documentary practices. Therefore, a definition of the concept of Representation of knowledge is indispensable. The term representation has been used in westere cultural and intellectual tradition to refer to the diverse ways that a subject comprehends an object. Representation is a process which requires the structure of natural language and human memory whereby it is interwoven in a subject and in conscience. However, at the present time, the term Representation of knowledge is applied to the processing of electronic information, combined with the aim of emulating the human mind in such a way that one has endeavoured to transfer, with great difficulty, the complex structurality of the conceptual representation of human knowledge to new digital information technologies. Thus, nowadays, representation of knowledge has taken an diverse meanings and it has focussed, for the moment, an certain structures and conceptual hierarchies which carry and transfer information, and has initially been based an the current representation of knowledge using artificial intelligence. The traditional languages of documentation, also referred to as languages of representation, offer a structured representation of conceptual fields, symbols and terms of natural and notational language, and they are the pillars for the necessary correspondence between the object or text and its representation. These correspondences, connections and symbolisations will be established within the electronic framework by means of different models and of the "goal" domain, which will give rise to organisations, structures, maps, networks and levels, as new electronic documents are not compact units but segments of information. Thus, the new representation of knowledge refers to data, images, figures and symbolised, treated, processed and structured ideas which replace or refer to documents within the framework of technical processing and the recuperation of electronic information.

Date

2. 1.2005 18:22:25

0.015961742 = product of:
  0.047885224 = sum of:
    0.047885224 = sum of:
      0.02414205 = weight(_text_:of in 3008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02414205 = score(doc=3008,freq=52.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.35238793 = fieldWeight in 3008, product of:
            7.2111025 = tf(freq=52.0), with freq of:
              52.0 = termFreq=52.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3008)
      0.023743173 = weight(_text_:22 in 3008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023743173 = score(doc=3008,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3008, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3008)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The project Information Pricing was carried out during the summer semester 2004 by four students and two lecturers. Aim of the project was to develop a new product- and pricing concept for the research centre of the Public Library Cologne. The intention was to increase its competitiveness, especially in the business customer segment. The initiating factor for the project was the significant decrease in requests from 1997 to 2001. This paper describes the development of different attributes of information, analysing various pricing concepts of private and public information providers as well as the development of a pricing concept which is aligned to the requirements and performance of the research centre. The final result was an improved pricing system for an enhanced range of products. The first step was getting more familiar with the characteristics of information and the methods that can be used to measure the value of information. One of the key issues to consider is the value of information for a customer and the question how this value can be charged. In order to be capable of evaluating all issues of information pricing and to develop a solid pricing system, it was essential to analyse and assess pricing modules based on their intension of use. For example, the differentiation of the pricing concept with regard to certain user segments like business or private users as well as members and non-members. Another option is to define prices dependant on the requested response times for research tasks and thereby reflect the urgency of those tasks directly in the pricing concept. Furthermore, the qualitative and quantitative differentiation of information has to be taken into account. All described approaches - and also combinations of these - should be considered when developing a new pricing system. It is also important to recognize the special role of the research centre as a part of the public library. Libraries fulfil a public contract for their users. In this case it has to be ensured that people of all social backgrounds have the chance to gain access to all kind of information. While presenting results to the Public library Cologne some problems arose, mainly the gap between theoretical and practical feasibility. The final result was a practical pricing system, which is easy to implement for the research centre and which is described in the paper.

Date

22. 7.2009 9:24:59

Source

Librarianship in the information age: Proceedings of the 13th BOBCATSSS Symposium, 31 January - 2 February 2005 in Budapest, Hungary. Eds.: Marte Langeland u.a

0.014496579 = product of:
  0.043489736 = sum of:
    0.043489736 = product of:
      0.17395894 = sum of:
        0.17395894 = weight(_text_:3a in 5895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17395894 = score(doc=5895,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.37143064 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 5895, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5895)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Politische Meinung. 381(2001) Nr.1, S.65-74 [https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dgfe.de%2Ffileadmin%2FOrdnerRedakteure%2FSektionen%2FSek02_AEW%2FKWF%2FPublikationen_Reihe_1989-2003%2FBand_17%2FBd_17_1994_355-406_A.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2KcbRsHy5UQ9QRIUyuOLNi]

0.013850185 = product of:
  0.041550554 = sum of:
    0.041550554 = product of:
      0.08310111 = sum of:
        0.08310111 = weight(_text_:22 in 4496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08310111 = score(doc=4496,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4496, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4496)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 7.2000 19:05:18

0.012059415 = product of:
  0.036178242 = sum of:
    0.036178242 = sum of:
      0.021338759 = weight(_text_:of in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021338759 = score(doc=2748,freq=104.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
            10.198039 = tf(freq=104.0), with freq of:
              104.0 = termFreq=104.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
      0.014839483 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.014839483 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

"This letter considers some main arguments in Professor Bates' article (2008), which is part of our former debate (Bates, 2005,2006; Hjoerland, 2007). Bates (2008) does not write much to restate or enlarge on her theoretical position but is mostly arguing about what she claims Hjorland (2007) ignored or misinterpreted in her two articles. Bates (2008, p. 842) wrote that my arguments did not reflect "a standard of coherence, consistency, and logic that is expected of an argument presented in a scientific journal." My argumentation below will refute this statement. This controversy is whether information should be understood as a subjective phenomenon (alone), as an objective phenomenon (alone), or as a combined objective and a subjective phenomenon ("having it both ways"). Bates (2006) defined "information" (sometimes, e.g., termed "information 1," p. 1042) as an objective phenomenon and "information 2" as a subjective phenomenon. However, sometimes the term "information" is also used as a synonym for "information 2," e.g., "the term information is understood to refer to one or both senses" (p. 1042). Thus, Professor Bates is not consistent in using the terminology that she herself introduces, and confusion in this controversy may be caused by Professor Bates' ambiguity in her use of the term "information." Bates (2006, p. 1033) defined information as an objective phenomenon by joining a definition by Edwin Parker: "Information is the pattern of organization of matter and energy." The argument in Hjoerland (2007) is, by contrast, that information should be understood as a subjective phenomenon all the way down: That neither the objective definition of information nor "having it both ways" is fruitful. This is expressed, for example, by joining Karpatschof's (2000) definition of information as a physical signal relative to a certain release mechanism, which implies that information is not something objective that can be understood independently of an observer or independently of other kinds of mechanism that are programmed to be sensitive to specific attributes of a signal: There are many differences in the world, and each of them is potentially informative in given situations. Regarding Parker's definition, "patterns of organization of matter and energy" are no more than that until they inform somebody about something. When they inform somebody about something, they may be considered information. The following quote is part of the argumentation in Bates (2008): "He contrasts my definition of information as 'observer-independent' with his position that information is 'situational' and adds a list of respected names on the situational side (Hjoerland, 2007, p. 1448). What this sentence, and much of the remainder of his argument, ignores is the fact that my approach accounts for both an observer-independent and a contextual, situational sense of information." Yes, it is correct that I mostly concentrated on refuting Bates' objective definition of information. It is as if Bates expects an overall appraisal of her work rather than providing a specific analysis of the points on which there are disagreements. I see Bates' "having it both ways": a symptom of inconsistence in argumentation.
Bates (2008, p. 843) further writes about her definition of information: "This is the objectivist foundation, the rock bottom minimum of the meaning of information; it informs both articles throughout." This is exactly the focus of my disagreement. If we take a word in a language, it is understood as both being a "pattern of organization of matter and energy" (e.g., a sound) and carrying meaning. But the relation between the physical sign and its meaning is considered an arbitrary relation in linguistics. Any physical material has the potential of carrying any meaning and to inform somebody. The physical stuff in itself is not information until it is used as a sign. An important issue in this debate is whether Bates' examples demonstrate the usefulness of her own position as opposed to mine. Her example about information seeking concerning navigation and how "the very layout of the ship and the design of the bridge promoted the smooth flow of information from the exterior of the ship to the crew and among the crewmembers" (Bates, 2006, pp. 1042-1043) does not justify Bates' definition of information as an objective phenomenon. The design is made for a purpose, and this purpose determines how information should be defined in this context. Bates' view on "curatorial sciences" (2006, p. 1043) is close to Hjorland's suggestions (2000) about "memory institutions," which is based on the subjective understanding of information. However, she does not relate to this proposal, and she does not argue how the objective understanding of information is related to this example. I therefore conclude that Bates' practical examples do not support her objective definition of information, nor do they support her "having it both ways." Finally, I exemplify the consequences of my understanding of information by showing how an archaeologist and a geologist might represent the same stone differently in information systems. Bates (2008, p. 843) writes about this example: "This position is completely consistent with mine." However, this "consistency" was not recognized by Bates until I published my objections and, therefore, this is an indication that my criticism was needed. I certainly share Professor Bates (2008) advice to read her original articles: They contain much important stuff. I just recommend that the reader ignore the parts that argue about information being an objective phenomenon."
References Bates, M.J. (2005). Information and knowledge: An evolutionary framework for information science. Information Research, 10(4), paper 239. Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/10-4/paper239.html. Bates, M.J. (2006). Fundamental forms of information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1033-1045. Bates, M.J. (2008). Hjorland's critique of Bates' work on defining information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 842-844. Hjoerland, B. (2000). Documents, memory institutions, and information science. Journal of Documentation, 56, 27-41. Hjoerland, B. (2007). Information: Objective or subjective-situational? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(10), 1448-1456. Karpatschof, B. (2000). Human activity. Contributions to the anthropological sciences from a perspective of activity theory. Copenhagen: Dansk Psykologisk Forlag. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from http://informationr.net/ir/ 12-3/Karpatschof/Karp00.html.

Date

22. 3.2009 18:13:27

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.3, S.643

0.011871587 = product of:
  0.03561476 = sum of:
    0.03561476 = product of:
      0.07122952 = sum of:
        0.07122952 = weight(_text_:22 in 4231) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07122952 = score(doc=4231,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4231, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4231)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 7.2000 19:05:31

0.011871587 = product of:
  0.03561476 = sum of:
    0.03561476 = product of:
      0.07122952 = sum of:
        0.07122952 = weight(_text_:22 in 4401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07122952 = score(doc=4401,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4401, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4401)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2000 13:33:40

0.011871587 = product of:
  0.03561476 = sum of:
    0.03561476 = product of:
      0.07122952 = sum of:
        0.07122952 = weight(_text_:22 in 4893) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07122952 = score(doc=4893,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4893, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4893)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

17. 7.1996 9:33:22

0.009892989 = product of:
  0.029678967 = sum of:
    0.029678967 = product of:
      0.059357934 = sum of:
        0.059357934 = weight(_text_:22 in 4225) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059357934 = score(doc=4225,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4225, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4225)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 7.2000 19:02:07